San Francisco Hall of Justice. (Photo: Ross Todd/ALM)

The Judicial Council this week released a revamped priority list of state courthouse construction projects, one that's sure to ignite a mix of cheers, anger and politicking.

The 80-project "draft" list, mandated by the Legislature, includes renovations and new construction plans estimated to cost more than $13.7 billion combined. Once approved, it's expected to serve as a road map—but not a strict guideline—for future funding decisions.

The judicial branch doesn't have money to pay for the projects. A $5 billion bond construction program authorized by lawmakers in 2008 delivered some new courthouses but not the 41 projects originally envisioned. State leaders diverted $1.4 billion in bond revenues during the recession years to pay for court operations and other state services.

Lawmakers have been sympathetic to the judiciary's construction needs but ordered a new priority list before considering any additional funding. The new list ranks each project proposed by local courts on criteria that includes safety considerations, overcrowding, disability access and seismic threats.

Who Tops The List

The four projects deemed immediate "needs" by the reprioritized list are: a new Lakeport courthouse in Lake County; renovations and additions at San Bernardino County's juvenile dependency courthouse; a new Ridgecrest courthouse in Kern County and a new Tracy courthouse in San Joaquin County.

A Judicial Council will consider the list of all 80 projects at a hearing in San Francisco on Thursday. A related draft report will go out for public comment next month, and the full Judicial Council is expected to approve the final project list in November before forwarding it to the Legislature.

The list may not dictate which construction is funded first. That could depend on "additional economic opportunity considerations," such as whether a local community provides land for a new courthouse or "fund contributions," said Peter Allen, the Judicial Council's public affairs director.

And with the Legislature making the ultimate funding decisions, politics are sure to play a role in which projects are selected.

Here's a look at how some projects fared under the new prioritization.

Winners

Inland Empire and Central Valley courts. Eight projects in those fast-growing areas of the state made the Top 20 list for most immediate and critical needs. Kern County alone has three projects in the top 22.

San Francisco. A new 24-courtroom Hall of Justice came in at No. 21 on the list thanks to low marks for the current facility's physical condition, security issues and overcrowding. Construction for a new San Francisco courthouse was not among the projects eyed for funding by the 2008 bond program. 

Losers

Los Angeles. The state's biggest trial court system has no projects deemed "immediate" or "critical," designations that are likely to draw the most attention when funding is doled out. Six Los Angeles projects were ranked "high" need, the third tier for ranking projects.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Presiding Judge Kevin Brazile declined to comment beyond a statement saying that the court would submit a letter regarding the rankings at Thursday's committee hearings.

South Monterey County. For years, county leaders have been trying to get a new courthouse to serve the poorer, more agriculturally based communities around Greenfield. The new rankings, however, slot a new seven-courtroom courthouse in Seaside as a higher priority than one proposed for the south county region.

Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo, a former state assemblyman from the Central Coast, has been crying foul about the Seaside proposal on social media. Expect a political fight over this one.

Placerville. A new courthouse for this historic El Dorado County city had been a high priority for the judicial branch dating back to 2008. The new rankings, however, now say the project is just a "high" need despite serious security concerns. Funding for land for a new courthouse became a political football in this year's state budget negotiations. Gov. Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed money the Legislature allocated for the purchase.